Smith/Waters Debate: Paul’s Teaching on MDR

Proposition: In the New Testament, the apostle Paul teaches that all competent adults, including the divorced, may marry.

May I also say that I am happy to deal with brother Waters’ arguments (?). According to his proposition two things are evident.

 

1. All of his arguments must come from Paul’s teaching. According to our first discussion, the teaching of Jesus plays no part in what we are now discussing, nor could it. It was Robert’s contention that Jesus’ teaching was making correction of the Jews’ abuse of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. These things were said and applied to the Jews under the Law of Moses. Therefore, according to this same apostle (Paul), they are no longer applicable. Galatians 3:24-25 “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. ²⁵But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.”

 

Robert said that Jesus was correcting the Jews who were in violation of the Law of Moses. According to Paul, we are no longer under the Law of Moses. Therefore, we are no longer under what Jesus said that corrected their actions regarding the Law. So, Robert, don’t bring up the Deuteronomy 24:1-4 nor Matthew 19:9 et al, for according to your teaching they are not applicable.

 

2. As we shall see before this discussion is over, there can be NO SCRIPTURAL REASON given now for two people to divorce much less marry another. That would take us back to what Jesus told the Jews. Matthew 19:4-6 “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, ⁵And said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?’ ⁶Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” One man for one woman for life was God’s arrangement from the beginning.

 

Also, according to Robert’s teaching, if one is divorced he/she is then loosed and free to marry another. According to this teaching, it is inconceivable, but possible, for one to divorce and marry another every six months for the rest of his life and still be pleasing to God.

 

Things to Observe

Under the above subtitle, Robert begins to give his surmisings (they are not arguments).

 

First: Robert says Paul’s teaching was for Christians and due to the “present distress” at Corinth. Does that mean that when the “the present distress” (whatever it was) was over that I Corinthians 7 would no longer apply? Does that mean that unless we are also being threatened by the same “present distress” the Corinthians were that I Corinthians 7 would not be applicable to us? Give us a little more light on that Robert.

 

Robert also said,

“Second, nowhere in Paul's teachings does he even hint that a divorce has to be for fornication before it frees the parties to marry. This is something that has been presumed that Jesus taught. But such teaching has Moses against God, Jesus against Moses, Paul against Jesus, Paul against himself…”

This is interesting and make for good reading, but the “proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Let’s see if he brings forth the proof. He didn’t in his 1^st affirmative.

 

“If God had intended for us to understand that only those who initiate divorce for fornication may marry another, would he not have inspired Paul to teach the same in no uncertain terms?”

Reply: If one has sinned against a brother, go alone and talk to him. If it is not resolved, take one or two with you and talk to him. If it is still not resolved, tell it to the church. (Matthew 18:15-17) Robert! Where did Paul or any other apostle or writer repeat this instruction after Pentecost? Does that mean it is not applicable today? (Remember, I didn’t bring up putting away for fornication, you did).

 

I Corinthians 7:1-2

There is not a single word said in these two passages with which I disagree. Any responsible person who desires to do so should have his OWN wife or husband. He MAY NOT have someone else’s as Herod did. Mark 6:17-18 “For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. ¹⁸For John had said unto Herod, ‘It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife’.”

 

So, according to your proposition the questions become, “were they competent adults and were they divorced?” If so, according to your proposition they had a right to be married. Now did John the Baptist depart from the faith in what he said? Was he in violation of I Timothy 4:1-4 when he told them their marriage was not lawful (thus forbidding them to marry)?

 

The only other passages Robert gave that has anything to do with the proposition are verses 27-28. I Corinthians 7:27-28 “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. ²⁸But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.”

 

God does the binding and the loosing. Romans 7:2-3 “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. ³So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

 

Although the word divorced is not in I Corinthians 7, Robert thinks that all that are unmarried are divorced. To the woman whom Paul said in verse 11 is unmarried, he says that she is to remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. Is Paul contradicting himself in I Timothy 4:1-4 as he tells this woman not to marry but be reconciled to her husband? Was Paul forbidding someone to marry?

(all underlining and bold type mine for emphasis – jts)